New corruption allegations in NM may involve Bill Richardson

posted at 4:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Just when Bill Richardson appeared to be in the clear on corruption charges in New Mexico, new allegations of pay-for-play during his administration may envelop the former Governor again. A grand jury indicted a sitting district judge on charges of corruption for buying his appointment from Richardson in 2006, and a whistleblowing judge believes the rot went all the way to the top:

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy allegedly said he gave $4,000 to get appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Bill Richardson in 2006, and told several people that other judicial appointees had to give money as well.

That’s according witness statements detailed in an incident report about the bribery case against Murphy. Ninth Judicial District Attorney Matt Chandler, the special prosecutor in the case, released the report and the grand jury indictment of Murphy today in response to a records request from NMPolitics.net. It’s the first time the facts of the case have been made public.

Read the full report here. What’s so shocking about it isn’t that payoffs were occurring, but that so many people knew they were occurring and did nothing about it. Judge Lisa Schultz was warned on more than one occasion that she was risking her personal safety in pursuing the corruption, by more than one judge. She defiantly told the district attorney’s office about the corruption in 2009, which then referred the case to independent counsel due to the inherent conflict of interest in investigating judges that preside over their own cases. The DA at that time was Susanna Martinez, who wound up succeeding Richardson as governor last year.

Schultz could have taken the matter to the Judicial Standards Commission, but she didn’t trust them — for a very specific reason:

She had previously asked Norm Osborn, the Third Judicial District Court’s staff attorney, for an opinion. He wrote in a Sept. 24, 2007 memo that Murphy’s conduct was inappropriate and could be interpreted as “offering political influence in return for campaign contributions,” according to the report. Osborn urged Schultz to “consider referring this matter to the Judicial Standards Commission and to do so without delay.”

Schultz didn’t want to do that. She wrote in her journal that the majority of the commission’s members were appointed by Richardson, and the commission, which investigates ethical complaints against judges, had power over her.

Schultz wrote that she believed “the scheme also involved Governor Richardson,” and she did not feel comfortable “turning in Governor Richardson to his own board.”

Schultz then went on to secretly record a subsequent conversation with Murphy, in which he tacitly admitted to the corruption:

“Judge Schultz said to Murphy, ‘Do you remember when I asked you and Judge Martin about the fact that you guys had mentioned to judicial candidates that they, it would help their chances to give money to Edgar Lopez and hence the governor, blah, blah, blah, blah?’”

“Judge Murphy responded and said, ‘Yeah, of course, that’s over now, because we’re going to have a new governor.’”

Edgar Lopez is the alleged bagman in this operation, and the buffer for Richardson in the alleged scheme. If Murphy cuts a deal — and a former judge has a lot of reasons to avoid the general population in a state prison — it will be to turn on Lopez and other judges who paid off Lopez for their appointments. Assuming this is true, Lopez will be looking at a very long stretch in prison if he keeps his mouth shut about Richardson, who is after all the man who made the appointments after Lopez got the cash. Lopez couldn’t collect unless Richardson was in on the scheme, and without Richardson, the other judges wouldn’t have felt the need to threaten others to keep quiet.

Richardson isn’t out of the woods at all in New Mexico. This should get very, very interesting, and it may set the Democratic Party back decades in the state.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Ambassador Bill Richardson apparently lied when he said at his recent confirmation hearings that a UN job he offered to Monica Lewinsky last year was to fill an existing opening. As a result of this apparent deception, and the great lengths to which Richardson went in order to explain the job offer after the Lewinsky scandal broke publicly, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, who chairs the Senate committee which confirmed Richardson as Energy secretary, has sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to hold off swearing Richardson in to his new post.

So, outside of the Richardson connections, even just these charges brings this judge’s previous decisions into the ‘mistrial’ category, no ?? Forgive if I’ve used the incorrect word for it… methinks y’all know what I mean. Maybe I watch too much ‘Law and Order’ .. LOL.

That part about where they have to write a check every week for as much as they can afford explains why it is so cheap. Once you get in they own you and you have to keep paying, so it isn’t really worth much to buy into that lifestyle. They have to keep each payment under $10K to stay under the IRS radar.

…Osborn urged Schultz to “consider referring this matter to the Judicial Standards Commission and to do so without delay.”

Schultz didn’t want to do that. She wrote in her journal that the majority of the commission’s members were appointed by Richardson, and the commission, which investigates ethical complaints against judges, had power over her.

Schultz wrote that she believed “the scheme also involved Governor Richardson,” and she did not feel comfortable “turning in Governor Richardson to his own board.”

This seems to be an unsatisfactory arrangement from the start; an open invitation to corruption and a disincentive to whistle-blowers.

You know what is so funny about this… Americans think they live in a democracy.
What difference is there to bribery and corruption in dictatorships in Latin America and what is happening all the time in the US?
The media is complicit by not telling the “stupid” population what is really going on because they can’t handle it. The various levels of government operate on who you know, who you contribute funds to and how much and what you can do for someone. The system is set up so only two parties exist for voters. Some democracy that is.
The Unites States…. another banana republic.

So, outside of the Richardson connections, even just these charges brings this judge’s previous decisions into the ‘mistrial’ category, no ?? Forgive if I’ve used the incorrect word for it… methinks y’all know what I mean. Maybe I watch too much ‘Law and Order’ .. LOL.

pambi on May 15, 2011 at 4:29 PM

hmmm, if a judge is convicted of fraud how does that related to all the cases he/she adjudicated? If “judge jones” convicted me of crime “x”and then was found to be …errrr…impartial, how does this affect me?

This story makes me appreciate Hawaii’s way of selecting judges even more. I have never liked the idea of judges running for office because I thought they might make decisions based on votes and not make the tough, unpopular BUT LAWFUL rulings. However, as is seen here, direct appointment is not better. Hawaii has a judicial selection committee. The committee prepares a list of names (yea there are probably politics in the compilation of this list admittedly) and the names go out and comments are solicited then the governor selects a name and legislature has to confirm the selection. It’s not perfect, but has more integrity than being able to buy a judgeship for $4,000.

Just when Bill Richardson appeared to be in the clear on corruption charges in New Mexico,

In the clear? Don’t be absurd. He was guilty as sin; the justice department just unilaterally dropped all charges (does “The New Black Panther Party” ring any bells?). Everyone in NM (and most of the rest of the country) knew he was guilty.

When corruption and breaking of laws is standard operatng procedures for demonrats, especially at the top, why is it a surprise that no one wastes time reporting it? It has always been there and nothing can stop it.

What party does Bill Richardson belong to? Let me check the article…. No mention of party, so he must be a Democrat. If he were a Republican, it would have been in the freaking article title and opening line.

Politicians as a general rule are corrupt. I’ve taken that to the bank many times and been proven right. Two groups have proven to be corrupt time and time again. The first group favor big government and work with big business to make sure both are happy. The second group is democrats. I am certain there are fewer uncorrupted Democrats than Republicans. I am not betting on the ratio.

Some of the uncorrupted have integrity mashed into their very souls and self-identities so hard they could not begin to contemplate corruption. McCain is probably one of that group. (That does not mean he is not an ill-advised muddy thinker.) Others are like Biden, too dumb to be corrupt and get away with it, know this, so elect to keep their fingers out of the cookie jar.

Heh, just had a fun thought. Put all new (and existing) politicians through a conditioning program. Don’t condition them to be honest. That’s not possible. Condition them to brag about their dishonesty and give them selves up in other ways. Call it a “Scared Straight” program.

I agree, politicians are almost inherently corrupt. Politics is all about clout, and you get at least as much from one hand washing the other as you do from peddling yourself to the people with insufficient cynicism. To a certain extent, you really can’t accomplish anything positive without a little bit of stuff the public might find corrupt.

And then you take into account the incentive structure shaping the political marketplace. Although people do put a premium on honesty (to the extent that they can distinguish it from dishonesty) and character, even the most informed voters are generalizing character assessments from a very small, very biased sample of that person’s behavior. On top of that, it’s an extremely degrading process, if you think about it. Often you’re literally going door to door trying to convince a person who thinks you’re an a-hole that you’re actually alright. So the people who are able to get into elected office are the people that want power enough to work long hours shamelessly degrading themselves and are the best at filling your sample of their behavior with actions that will make you think they’re good people.
Some actually do care enough to go through the process just to make the world a better place, and their public behavior makes them look good because, deep down they are actually good. I have more respect for those few than I can put into words. But statistically speaking, considering that those appearances can be manufactured, it’s much easier to manipulate the sample than it is to be an actually good person (and you can actually do a better job at it, as you can work around situations where doing the right thing looks bad) and the willingness to degrade yourself for power/approval is at least as much of a driver in human behavior as the willingness to degrade yourself to make the world a better place, it’s ultimately irrational to expect anything but a large percentage of politicians being corrupt.

And the incentive towards the corruption (and the draw for the corrupt) is almost 1:1 related to the amount of money at play, so the corrupting and the corrupt will both be drawn more towards where there’s competitive advantage in increasing the size of the pot. So naturally the bigger government types will have a greater % of corrupt politicians, although for a lot of politicians actual ideology is a secondary concern at best.

The first group favor big government and work with big business to make sure both are happy. The second group is democrats. I am certain there are fewer uncorrupted Democrats than Republicans. I am not betting on the ratio.

Huh? I don’t see that at all…I tend to think if you are a democrat you are corrupted.